PDA

View Full Version : Afroasiatic dispersal and E-M78



Passa
05-06-2015, 12:56 PM
I have been gathering SNP data of Y-DNA E, in particular M78 and sub-clades. This is what I managed to gather: 4504

M78's dispersal resembles very closely the Afroasiatic dispersal, if we consider an origin in the Levant for this language family (there is evidence for this: 4505

Presumably V32 dispersed with Cushitic languages via the Bab el-Mandeb strait, while V22, V65 and (possibly) CTS693 carried Egyptian, Berber and Chadic in North Africa and the Sahel via the northern route (Sinai). Regarding Omotic, I actually doubt it is an Afroasiatic language for various reasons, one of which is the genetic makeup of the populations speaking Omotic (they are dominated by E-M329, unlike all other Afroasiatic speakers in Ethiopia and elsewhere, and their autosomal makeup is dominated by the Ethiopic component, while the other Afroasiatic speakers in Ethiopia carry high frequencies of the Ethio-Somali component; see Hodgson et al. 2014).

Semitic developed in the Levant and was later spread by M123 and sub-clades.

Agamemnon
05-06-2015, 03:26 PM
I tend to favour the African coasts of the Red Sea (NE Sudan-SE Egypt) as the PAA urheimat, along with the Nile Valley as the main corridor for the earliest AA dispersals, but the PAA urheimat issue is far from settled.
Omotic's AA status is fairly uncontroversial if you ask me (even if Diakonoff would disagree with this), in fact it was classified as "West Cushitic" by the past.

What we can say is this: E-M35.1's phylogeny - and phylogeography - shows striking parallels with most AA branches, which means this haplogroup participated in the earliest AA dispersals (probably even at PAA stage).

NB: Can someone move this thread to the "Linguistics" section? Thank you!

Passa
05-06-2015, 03:41 PM
I tend to favour the African coasts of the Red Sea (NE Sudan-SE Egypt) as the PAA urheimat, along with the Nile Valley as the main corridor for the earliest AA dispersals, but the PAA urheimat issue is far from settled.
Omotic's AA status is fairly uncontroversial if you ask me (even if Diakonoff would disagree with this), in fact it was classified as "West Cushitic" by the past.

What we can say is this: E-M35.1's phylogeny - and phylogeography - shows striking parallels with most AA branches, which means this haplogroup participated in the earliest AA dispersals (probably even at PAA stage).

NB: Can someone move this thread to the "Linguistics" section? Thank you!

I don't think all of E-M35.1 has to do with AA. E-L19 (of which M81 is the best-known sub-clade), for example, has been in the Maghreb for at least 24000 years (http://www.yfull.com/tree/E1b1b1b1/). Other clades too, such as V6 and V92, are not clearly linked to any AA branch.
M123 is clearly linked to the dispersal of Semitic, M78 to Berber (V65), Egyptian (V22) and Cushitic (V32).

Omotic is not AA IMO, and uniparental+autosomal data support this view too.

As per the AA homeland, aDNA from ancient Nubia points at an introgression of E and other Eurasian lineages in the region: http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312
So, the African coasts of the Red Sea between NE-Sudan and SE-Egypt are not a valid alternative IMO.

Agamemnon
05-06-2015, 04:30 PM
I don't think all of E-M35.1 has to do with AA. E-L19 (of which M81 is the best-known sub-clade), for example, has been in the Maghreb for at least 24000 years (http://www.yfull.com/tree/E1b1b1b1/). Other clades too, such as V6 and V92, are not clearly linked to any AA branch.
M123 is clearly linked to the dispersal of Semitic, M78 to Berber (V65), Egyptian (V22) and Cushitic (V32).

Nothing really enables us to say when E-L19 (let alone any of its subclades) managed to end up in the Maghreb. But that's above the point, by that same token I could argue that M78 as a whole has nothing to do with AA since L618 (and its main subclade, V13) isn't clearly linked to any AA branch (despite the fact that it is phylogenetically closer to V22 since both happen to be branches of Z1919). In other words, that kind of logic is the phylogenetic equivalent of a double-edged sword.


Omotic is not AA IMO, and uniparental+autosomal data support this view too.

Omotic's AA status is a linguistic issue, not a genetic one. From a uniparental standpoint, North Omotic speakers have high frequencies of haplogroup J* (most of which is presumably J1), so I wouldn't be that quick to deny them any kind of AA ancestry.


As per the AA homeland, aDNA from ancient Nubia points at an introgression of E and other Eurasian lineages in the region: http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312
So, the African coasts of the Red Sea between NE-Sudan and SE-Egypt are not a valid alternative IMO.

Again, the PAA urheimat is a linguistic issue, not a genetic one. That's a bit like trying to pinpoint the PIE urheimat going off population genetics while ignoring linguistic data in the first place.

Kale
05-06-2015, 04:36 PM
^
http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312

First aDNA study I've ever really seen about Africa and they give next to squat about details. The whole paper is comparable to an abstract.

Agamemnon
05-06-2015, 04:40 PM
^
http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312

First aDNA study I've ever really seen about Africa and they give next to squat about details. The whole paper is comparable to an abstract.

Furthermore, the time frame doesn't fit with the PAA urheimat, so there's that.

Passa
05-06-2015, 05:11 PM
Furthermore, the time frame doesn't fit with the PAA urheimat, so there's that.

1) You think that PAA homeland is in the territory where Beja live today, basically
2) PAA is at least 12000 years old (possibly even 18000 years old). The presence of its speakers, if they really lived along the northern Red Sea, would have been very strong in the area and surroundings, and yet aDNA shows that there's barely any E or F in A-Group Nubians. E and F appear to be significantly more common in the Meroitic and later periods. This shouldn't have been the case
3) If PAA homeland was in the northern Red Sea area and its speakers spread AA from there we would see a lot of A-M13 (and Nilotic admixture) along with E-M35.1 in Eurasia; this isn't the case at all, instead we see that virtually everywhere in Afroasiatic Africa there are several Eurasian lineages along with E-M78. So the migration had to be SW Asia -> Africa, not the other way around.

There are no traces of migrations out of Africa through the Sinai, neither in the Neolithic nor earlier in the Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic. Instead there's a lot of evidence for the immigration in the Nile Valley of SW Asian populations both in the Epipaleolithic (see Harifian) and especially in the Neolithic. African cattle is of West Asian origin and was brought in Africa by farmers (the same farmers that diffused AA in Africa IMO) ca. 10000 years ago (http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2014.89).

Tomasso29
05-06-2015, 05:33 PM
2) PAA is at least 12000 years old (possibly even 18000 years old). The presence of its speakers, if they really lived along the northern Red Sea, would have been very strong in the area and surroundings, and yet aDNA shows that there's barely any E or F in A-Group Nubians. E and F appear to be significantly more common in the Meroitic and later periods. This shouldn't have been the case

Where did you come up with that date?


3) If PAA homeland was in the northern Red Sea area and its speakers spread AA from there we would see a lot of A-M13 (and Nilotic admixture) along with E-M35.1 in Eurasia; this isn't the case at all, instead we see that virtually everywhere in Afroasiatic Africa there are several Eurasian lineages along with E-M78. So the migration had to be SW Asia -> Africa, not the other way around.

Or perhaps the several Eurasian lineages could have entered Africa in multiple waves and at anytime throughout history. Just in the past 3000 years I can think of multiple scenarios where people from West Asia might have migrated to Africa, yet oddly you're trying to tie them all to a hypothetical PAA migration?

Passa
05-06-2015, 06:07 PM
Where did you come up with that date?



Or perhaps the several Eurasian lineages could have entered Africa in multiple waves and at anytime throughout history. Just in the past 3000 years I can think of multiple scenarios where people from West Asia might have migrated to Africa, yet oddly you're trying to tie them all to a hypothetical PAA migration?

Diakonoff (Diakonoff, Igor M. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka.) says 12 kya, Ehret (Ehret C (2002b) Language Family Expansions: Broadening our Understandings of Cause from an African Perspective, in Bellwood and Renfrew (2002 eds)) says 13 kya or even 18 kya.

Regarding the second part of your quote, I was only suggesting that some West Asian lineages may have taken part in the diffusion of AA in Africa.

Agamemnon
05-06-2015, 07:10 PM
1) You think that PAA homeland is in the territory where Beja live today, basically
2) PAA is at least 12000 years old (possibly even 18000 years old). The presence of its speakers, if they really lived along the northern Red Sea, would have been very strong in the area and surroundings, and yet aDNA shows that there's barely any E or F in A-Group Nubians. E and F appear to be significantly more common in the Meroitic and later periods. This shouldn't have been the case
3) If PAA homeland was in the northern Red Sea area and its speakers spread AA from there we would see a lot of A-M13 (and Nilotic admixture) along with E-M35.1 in Eurasia; this isn't the case at all, instead we see that virtually everywhere in Afroasiatic Africa there are several Eurasian lineages along with E-M78. So the migration had to be SW Asia -> Africa, not the other way around.

1) More or less, though the Urheimat could possibly cover a larger territory and extend further north. The Beja are hunter-herders who arrived recently in the area.

2) Yes, according to the most reasonable estimates PAA was probably spoken some ~12,000 to 13,000 yBP, possibly even earlier (which is what Ehret and Keita propose). The presence of the PAA urheimat on the African shores of the Red Sea doesn't necessarily imply a strong presence of AA speakers in later periods, in fact the Nile Valley is quite likely to have acted as a corridor through which the earliest AA dispersals took place. In a sense, the Nile Valley could be a "secondary" homeland. Once more, the time frame implied here isn't covered by the paper. One could envision a process which saw the disappearance of early AA-speaking communities from the PAA urheimat, much like the Proto-Turkic Urheimat's disintegration in Mongolia.

3) Again, you're trying to solve what is a mainly linguistic issue from a genetic standpoint, while in fact we should proceed the other way around. The Nilo-Saharan phylum is still poorly understood (not to say understudied), and odds are the Eastern Sudanic branch is intrusive to the shores of the Red Sea, especially considering the areal-like features in common between Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. As a matter of fact, PAA might also share quite a few areal features with Niger-Congo, and this cannot be explained by a SW Asian urheimat (since these features are also found in Semitic).


There are no traces of migrations out of Africa through the Sinai, neither in the Neolithic nor earlier in the Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic. Instead there's a lot of evidence for the immigration in the Nile Valley of SW Asian populations both in the Epipaleolithic (see Harifian) and especially in the Neolithic. African cattle is of West Asian origin and was brought in Africa by farmers (the same farmers that diffused AA in Africa IMO) ca. 10000 years ago (http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2014.89).

That should be more or less irrelevant right now, since one thing we can more or less be sure of at this point is that the earliest AA dispersals were, in all likeliness, driven by foraging communities, especially since terms referring to the Neolithic package (namely permanent architecture, animal husbandry, and plant cultivation) fail to yield earlier roots at pre-proto stage in most branches.


Regarding the second part of your quote, I was only suggesting that some West Asian lineages may have taken part in the diffusion of AA in Africa.

I essentially agree with that part, it seems to me that several lineages (which must've come from West Asia at some point) such as R1b-V88, T-M70 and J1-M267 were involved in AA dispersals at an early stage alongside E-M35.1. Nevertheless, this has no bearing on the urheimat issue per se which should rely on linguistic evidence first and foremost.

Passa
05-06-2015, 07:38 PM
1) More or less, though the Urheimat could possibly cover a larger territory and extend further north. The Beja are hunter-herders who arrived recently in the area.

2) Yes, according to the most reasonable estimates PAA was probably spoken some ~12,000 to 13,000 yBP, possibly even earlier (which is what Ehret and Keita propose). The presence of the PAA urheimat on the African shores of the Red Sea doesn't necessarily imply a strong presence of AA speakers in later periods, in fact the Nile Valley is quite likely to have acted as a corridor through which the earliest AA dispersals took place. In a sense, the Nile Valley could be a "secondary" homeland. Once more, the time frame implied here isn't covered by the paper. One could envision a process which saw the disappearance of early AA-speaking communities from the PAA urheimat, much like the Proto-Turkic Urheimat's disintegration in Mongolia.

3) Again, you're trying to solve what is a mainly linguistic issue from a genetic standpoint, while in fact we should proceed the other way around. The Nilo-Saharan phylum is still poorly understood (not to say understudied), and odds are the Eastern Sudanic branch is intrusive to the shores of the Red Sea, especially considering the areal-like features in common between Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. As a matter of fact, PAA might also share quite a few areal features with Niger-Congo, and this cannot be explained by a SW Asian urheimat (since these features are also found in Semitic).



That should be more or less irrelevant right now, since one thing we can more or less be sure of at this point is that the earliest AA dispersals were, in all likeliness, driven by foraging communities, especially since terms referring to the Neolithic package (namely permanent architecture, animal husbandry, and plant cultivation) fail to yield earlier roots at pre-proto stage in most branches.



I essentially agree with that part, it seems to me that several lineages (which must've come from West Asia at some point) such as R1b-V88, T-M70 and J1-M267 were involved in AA dispersals at an early stage alongside E-M35.1. Nevertheless, this has no bearing on the urheimat issue per se which should rely on linguistic evidence first and foremost.

Regarding point 3, the info about Eastern Sudanic is irrelevant, TBH. Nobody is saying that A-Group Nubians spoke Eastern Sudanic dialects, or Nilo-Saharan at all. We don't know.

Agamemnon
05-06-2015, 07:47 PM
Regarding point 3, the info about Eastern Sudanic is irrelevant, TBH. Nobody is saying that A-Group Nubians spoke Eastern Sudanic dialects, or Nilo-Saharan at all. We don't know.

It is relevant since we have to take linguistic geography into consideration, which (in this case) suggests rather strongly that it is indeed an intrusive group.
Either way, the PAA urheimat issue isn't by any means a settled debate, an equally strong case can be made for a Near Eastern urheimat (provided that it fits with the data, in other words that PAA speakers were a foraging community and that the same can be said for most of the AA nodes).

Passa
05-06-2015, 08:43 PM
East Sudanic may have been intrusive, but A-M13 was there since the initial Paleolithic. That is what I tried to say when I said that it was irrelevant.

Agamemnon
05-07-2015, 12:09 AM
East Sudanic may have been intrusive, but A-M13 was there since the initial Paleolithic. That is what I tried to say when I said that it was irrelevant.

Until we get results from Paleolithic remains in that part of the world, that's just an assumption at best.